2

I have come across the structure below in an exercise book for non-native speakers of English.

"Let your teeth be brushed every day."

My question is: do native speakers use this structure? Actually, l feel that it is formal or old-fashioned, right?

Improve this question
3
  • Tangential to your question, but the word would be "construct" or "construction" rather than "structure". "structure" feels like a weird word to use in this context.
    – Parthian Shot
    Commented Mar 15, 2017 at 19:34
  • I think "structure" is more proper than " construction". Anyway, both are used. Thanks.
    – Mohamed Ali
    Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 7:15
  • No, Parthian Shot is right. Construction is the word you’re looking for.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 8:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

Let this be a good lesson in the difference between semantics and syntax:

One would never say such a thing about ones teeth. It is a very unnatural suggestion; if you are in a strange enough position for others to be brushing your teeth (you have an illness or have had an accident that prevents you from brushing your teeth yourself, allowing others to brush your teeth is probably not something you can choose to do (the actual 'letting') - presumably others will decide that you need to have your teeth brushed.

But...the general syntax is just fine. "Let (something) (present subjunctive)" is a very natural structure:

  • Let the boy tie his own shoelaces (don't do it yourself)
  • Let them eat cake (it's your birthday, or you are sarcastically insulting poor people)
  • Let it be (zen-like advice to others while your rock band falls apart)

That's how you use the imperative 'Let'. It does not sound old-fashioned at all.

In the particular sentence you gave it sounds strange because the semantics is strange, not the syntax.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    An excellent answer and worthy of an upvote. Please let me add a quibble or two. The let construction is how English presents the imperative mood in first and second persons. Your examples are all third person (The boy should tie his shoes, the poor should eat cake, and the universe should be left to itself.) The first person is also possible: *Let's get a drink." And this is the key to the unidiomatic brushing example. It can only be understood as an instruction to the 2nd-person owner of the teeth, but in the passive, it's directed to the 3rd-person teeth.
    – deadrat
    Commented Mar 15, 2017 at 20:12
  • 1
    +1 There is at least one situation I can think of where the situation would make sense, but even then we wouldn't say it this way. The dentist would say: Let your parents/mom/dad/auntie/etc. brush your teeth every day.* As @deadrat says, an imperative in the passive sounds weird, but put the brusher(s) back in there and it sounds fine. *Kids up to around age six don't have the dexterity to do a good job brushing their own teeth, but they certainly have enough strength and will to make it difficult for the adult(s) in their lives if they don't cooperate!
    – 1006a
    Commented Mar 15, 2017 at 21:05
  • The construction is “Let [subject] [infinitive]”, not subjunctive, and I don’t think the example in the question necessarily implies that someone else does the brushing for you—in fact that’s the whole point of the passive: it removes the necessity of specifying the agent. This just isn’t a very natural way of phrasing it. @deadrat The let construction is how English forms imperatives in the first and third persons, not the second.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 8:14
  • @1006a Not all passive imperatives sound weird—there are cases where it sounds quite normal. The most common ones that spring to mind are introductions of the type “Let it be known that…”, etc., or mathematical statements à la “Let X be defined by YZπ”, etc.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 8:16
  • @JanusBahsJacquet you're right, I should have said "the imperative" meaning in this case, or maybe "an order (to an individual)" meaning something less formally defined than the grammar term. Grammatically both of your examples are imperative, but I think they're—practically? I'm sure you have a better way to define the difference for me!—a bit different from "let me do that" or "let it go". And of course even with direct commands we can use the passive specifically for the slightly archaic/formal feel, e.g "let it be so."
    – 1006a
    Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 9:05
2

No. We would say "You should brush your teeth every day." The original sounds like a line in an old song.

Improve this answer
1
  • You're right. The problem is that it's easy to get to the moon rather than convince those who insist on teaching students such old-fashioned structures.
    – Mohamed Ali
    Commented Mar 15, 2017 at 18:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .